In BRANDING IT 3.0 global branding expert Marco Casanova uses best practice examples from more than 20 of today’s leading corporations, including Amazon, Starbucks, and Ritz Carlton, and shows how state-of-the-art brand management can be achieved.

You will learn:

How branding drives the value of today’s businesses and is increasingly associated with impressive corporate gains

The 10 “Cs of Branding” that can dramatically improve the bottom line

The key factors needed to successfully brand any new product and new product launch

BRANDING IT 3.0 is the essential guide on building a successful world-class brand.

Please find below an excerpt from “Branding It 3.0: Business Performance through Excellence in Brand Management”.

Branding drives business performance!

The value of a company is strongly influenced by the value of its brands

Empirical data proves that the value of the brand as a so called intangible asset is responsible for more than 50% of the value of the entire company. This is true for B2C and as well for B2B brands.

Brand relationship becomes the competitive advantage

To be successful a brand must be seen by stakeholders (customers, shareholders, employees, talents, suppliers, opinion leaders, media and others more) as something that has a purpose, adding value in their lives (rationally and/or emotionally). By doing so, stakeholders engage in a positive way with the brand, the company, its employees and its products and services, communicating and behaving accordingly and also influencing others positively. This kind of brand relationship becomes the competitive advantage. It becomes the core competence of success.

A strong Brand turns stakeholders into advocates

Advocates are powerful influencers by

bringing third party credibility to messages

being financially supportive

expert influence on other

defending in times of crisis

The financial metric EV / EBITDA ratio

EV / EBITDA has historically been the best performing metric and outperforms many investor favorites such as price-to-earnings, free-cash-flow to total enterprise value, and book-to-market. EV / EBITDA is the enterprise value of a company divided by its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. EV / EBITDA answers the question «What is a company being valued per each dollar of EBITDA?».

Competitive comparison of different EV / EBITDA ratio

The competitive comparison on the EV / EBITDA ratio shows that the stronger the brand purpose is perceived the stronger the company is valued. The brand purpose of Apple and Google are not so clear anymore, somehow a little bit outdated and as well not really unique anymore. While Facebook and Amazon are doing fine, the real stars are Netflix and Tesla with their very much appealing brand purposes!

The more inspiring and relevant the brand purpose is perceived by the stakeholders, the higher the EV / EBITDA ratio!

The crucial question is how has the brand purpose to be, to be compelling enough?

Summary
After Forbes has has published the annual list of the “Most Innovative Companies” for many years, CNBC has published the 2018 edition for the first time. The ranking is still compiled by Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG), who have surveyed wide range of countries and industries since 2005 to help cast light on the perceived state of innovation in global business. Like in recent years, this year’s report names 50 companies that – according to BCG – are seen as “most innovative” worldwide.

The methodology is based on a perception survey among 1,000 senior managers across multiple industries globally and – complementary – on three financial measures over a three-year period: total shareholder return (TSR), revenue growth and margin growth. Respondents’ votes counted for 80 per cent of the ranking, while TSR for 10 per cent, and revenue and margin growth for 5 per cent each. The top managers were asked to rank the most innovative companies both in their own and in all industries and five-year growth is indicated in TSR. Due to this mixture of collecting perceptions AND “hard facts” plus the expertise of the seniority of survey respondents, this methodology is a robust and plausible way to measure the “innovativeness” of companies – unlike other ranking approaches that either only rely on surveys OR on so-called “hard facts” such as patents only. Respondents to the survey were not only asked to rank the most innovative companies but also to name the most important drivers for innovation in their view.

As the subtitle of this year’s ranking “Innovators Go All In on Digital” suggests, digitalization is seen as one key driver for innovation. When asked “Which of the following areas of innovation and product development will have the greatest impact in your industry over the next three to five years?”, the most frequent responses were “new products” (41%), “technology platforms” (41%) and “big data analytics” (39%).

Like last year, Apple and Google are at the top of the list, followed by Microsoft at #3. Tesla, last year’s #3, dropped 4 positions to #7 this year. Most remarkable are two new entrants to the Top 10: Uber at #9 (coming from #17 last year) and Alibaba at #10 this year, not even listed in 2017 – a spectacular jump! Bayer, the German-based pharma and agrcultural giant – just about to swallow Monsanto -, dropped from #11 last year to #27 in the new list. With Bayer dropping significantly, it is also worth mentioning that this year’s list does not cover any healthcare company among the top 20 – although the industry strongly claims to be highly innovative. The best ranked healthcare company is J&J only at #25. Geographically, North America is seen as having by far the most innovative companies, with 27 corporation featured on the list. Europe has 16 entrants, up from 10 last year. Switzerland, regularly rated as one of the most innovative countries worldwide, only has one company on the list: Nestlé at #50.

In conclusion, “Most Innovative Companies” is a highly valuable ranking to gauge and compare the innovation status of individual companies. As the ranking has a long history, comparisons and developments over time are possible. The only limitation is that the ranking is built on senior managers’ perceptions only – a very important stakeholder group, but not the only one that counts.

You can read the CNBC article incl. the full top 50 ranking table here.

Detailed information on the ranking and a PDF report can be found on the BCG website.

Comment: As opposed to the recent years, the report is not covered by Forbes but by CNBC – which also a renowned media outlet.

Aggregated points: 15 (of max. 15)

Do the ranking results provide overall orientation where companies stand?

limited orientation only (1 point)

fair orientation provided (3 points)

very good orientation (5 points)

Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?

ranking is published for the first time (1 point)

ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)

ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)

Comment: Ranking published for the 12th time in a row.

Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?

limited added value only (1 point)

fair amount of added value (3 points)

high amount of added value (5 points)

Aggregated points: 15 (of max. 15)

Is the ranking based on a representative survey among key stakeholders or on a jury only?

Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)

Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)

Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)

Comment: Only CEOs and senior executives are asked, but they are generally well-informed about the innovation status of companies. It is not transparent on how many respondents from which country the survey is based.

Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?

Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)

Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)

Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)

Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?

Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)

Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/rated-rankings/rated-ranking-the-most-innovative-companies-2018/feed0“The Influence of the National and Regional Image on Tourism and Economic Development“https://www.branding-institute.com/news/the-influence-of-the-national-and-regional-image-on-tourism-and-economic-development-economic-forum-poland
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/the-influence-of-the-national-and-regional-image-on-tourism-and-economic-development-economic-forum-poland#respondThu, 07 Sep 2017 13:59:42 +0000https://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2827From 5 to 7 September 2017 the 27th version of the Economic Forum, an international economic conference attended by political and business elites from all over Europe, takes places in Krynica-Zdroj in Poland. Today, six speakers from Portugal, Ukraine, Germany, Moldova, Poland and Switzerland come together at a discussion panel entitled “Fighting Stereotypes – the Influence of the National and Regional Image on Tourism and Economic Development“. Among them is Markus Renner, Managing Partner of Branding-Institute and Co-Chairman of the International Brand & Reputation Community (INBREC). Together they will discuss questions like: How can we diminish negative stereotypes about nationalities? How to use country and regional brands to attract tourists and investors?

A country’s or region’s image is an important element of its economic development – especially when it comes to tourism. In this context, Markus Renner elaborates on the impact of brand and reputation on business results, in general, and the so-called “Country of Origin Effect”. Research shows that consumers’ and other stakeholders’ general perceptions of a country or region combine to create an overall reputation that is also associated with the products and services offered by that particular country or region.

Sometimes, there is a huge gap between the self-perception of a country and its actual reputation hold by various stakeholders. It is very important to close that gap: you can only have sustainable success if you meet the expectations of your key stakeholders such as tourists but also investors and other stakeholders. Poland’s reputation, for example, ranks below average compared to other countries. Countries like Switzerland, Germany and Japan can be found on top of the list thanks to their strong reputation in areas like “quality”, “precision”, “innovation” and “political stability”. Markus Renner explains that a way to actively use the Country of Origin Effect is to adapt a strategy focused on the associations and perceptions of a country or region and use them in your favour: “Country of Origin Branding”.

For more than 25 years, the Economic Forum has been an important debate platform representing civil society, local and regional community circles, political representatives, business world and international experts.

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/news/the-influence-of-the-national-and-regional-image-on-tourism-and-economic-development-economic-forum-poland/feed0Update: FutureBrand Index 2016https://www.branding-institute.com/news/update-futurebrand-index-2016
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/update-futurebrand-index-2016#respondMon, 30 Jan 2017 16:28:40 +0000http://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2650& reputation ranking. ]]>FutureBrand published their FutureBrand Index 2016. The ranking is based on the hypothesis that there is a considerable difference between the perception and financial performance of companies. In order to prove this hypothesis there is a survey among 3,000 members of the so-called ‘informed public’ (i.e. people in professional jobs, including top leaders and managers – in 17 countries around the world). They were asked to rate the global top 100 companies by market capitalization (based on PwC Global Top 100 Companies by market capitalization) on 18 attributes.

In the 2016 edition there are nine new entrants like the Google holding company Alphabet, Starbucks and Deutsche Telekom. Nine company brands are not included in the ranking, among others Volkswagen, Astra Zeneca and Banco Santander. This is due to a drop out or entrance in the PwC Global Top 100 Companies list. Apple makes it to the pole position of the ranking followed by Microsoft and Samsung. In the 2015 edition Google was in the first rank. It would have defended the pole position if there had not been the foundation of the holding company Alphabet which is on #21, an impressive rank for a newly founded company.

FutureBrand identifies some other key findings in its ranking. Firstly, according to FutureBrand, the so-called ‘future brands’ have a measurable competitive advantage compared to other brands. These brands are characterised by an outstanding balance between a strong perception of their purpose and the experience they deliver. Therefore they are more likely to succeed in the future. Brands like Apple, Microsoft or Facebook have been identified as ‘future brands’ for a longer time whereas e.g. Amazon, Nike or Alphabet only have been ‘future brands’ since the 2016 edition. Secondly, FutureBrand states that banking brands like Berkshire Hathaway or the China Construction Bank are gaining ground after the losses during the financial crisis whereas the perception of tech brands decreases. Thirdly, there is a perception increase of 8% in Chinese brands with 10 companies from China in the ranking.

We have assessed the 2015 edition of the FutureBrand Index in a detailed Rated Ranking. In our opinion it is a useful ranking because of the robust survey it is based on. It is also a great service that all companies listed can be compared versus peers in all dimensions surveyed in an interactive radar map. But it also has some flaws. For example, it is questionable whether the 18 dimensions used to define the best “future brands” are appropriate. Overlaps in the connotations of the above mentioned dimensions “respect”, “trust” and “authenticity” raise some doubts. Unfortunately, FutureBrand does not reveal the questions behind their 18 dimensions. The ranking is not representative as there is only one – albeit important stakeholder group – surveyed. There is no new assessment in 2016 as the methodology remains unchanged. Ratings of many major brand and reputation rankings can be found here. Please click here for the FutureBrand ranking site.

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/news/update-futurebrand-index-2016/feed0Panel discussion on “made in Europe”https://www.branding-institute.com/news/panel-discussion-on-made-in-europe
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/panel-discussion-on-made-in-europe#respondMon, 24 Oct 2016 12:57:10 +0000http://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2639Prof. Dr. Markus Renner, Co-Owner and Managing Partner of Branding-Institute and Co-Chairman of the International Brand & Reputation Community (INBREC), will take part in a top-level panel discussion on “Europe – old new production location”.

Due to better production factors many companies have relocated their production facilities from Europe to the USA or Asia, notably China. Nevertheless, conditions and standards of production often cannot compete with European standards. Therefore many companies come back to Europe. The panel discussion with top-level participants will discuss opportunities and challenges of Europe as a production location. Markus Renner will elaborate on the influence of brand and reputation on business success and on country of origin branding in particular. Further panellists, among others, are Sven Carstensen (CEO Thales Alenia Space Deutschland GmbH) and Dr. Harald Traxler (Chairman of the Board voestalpine Automotive Components Dettingen GmbH).

The panel discussion takes place in advance of “Global Connect”, a forum and trade fair for export and internationalisation in Stuttgart on October 25, 2016. It is organised by the Swiss-German Business Club, the German Economic Council, the French-German Business Club and Advance Austria. Please click here for more information.

If you are interested in country of origin branding please join Markus Renner’s LinkedIn Group of the same name.

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/news/panel-discussion-on-made-in-europe/feed0Interview with South African radio station “Channel Africa”https://www.branding-institute.com/news/interview-with-south-african-radio-station-channel-africa
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/interview-with-south-african-radio-station-channel-africa#respondFri, 14 Oct 2016 15:20:52 +0000http://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2629Markus Renner, Co-Owner and Managing Partner of Branding-Institute and Co-Chairman of the International Brand & Reputation Community (INBREC), was invited to an interview with the South African radio channel “Channel Africa”.

Presenter Pule Phalatse interviewed him on the relation between brand and reputation, positive and negative impacts on brands and the brand South Africa. Markus Renner elaborated in particular on the “Country of Origin Effect” – the positive and negative effects the country a brand comes from has on its products and services. He mentioned Swiss watches as a positive example and Samsung smartphones as a negative one. The latter are sold without branding in Japan because of the bad reputation of Korea.

Asked about the brand South Africa Markus Renner underlined that there are not only negative association with the country brand like corruption or safety issues. For him the brand South Africa is particularly interesting, as it has risen in relevant country brand rankings though democracy in South Africa has only been installed 22 years ago.

The occasion of his trip to South Africa is the third meeting of the African chapter of the International Brand & Reputation Community (INBREC), a dedicated forum for senior brand and reputation professionals of mostly large corporations and organizations. Currently, there are six country chapters in Switzerland, Germany, the UK, Africa, the Nordics and the Benelux states.

Channel Africa is the international radio service of the national South African broadcasting company SABC focusing on South Africa and the whole African continent. Its internet broadcast covers the whole world. Click here to listen to the interview with Markus Renner.

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/news/interview-with-south-african-radio-station-channel-africa/feed0“The Stakeholder is King” – Article in German business magazine “return“https://www.branding-institute.com/news/the-stakeholder-is-king-article-in-german-business-magazine-return
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/the-stakeholder-is-king-article-in-german-business-magazine-return#respondThu, 18 Aug 2016 13:31:18 +0000http://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2611The well-known and established slogan “The Customer is King” should be replaced by the more comprehensive maxim “The Stakeholder is King”. This is the central idea of an article published by Markus Renner, Co-Owner and Managing Partner of Branding-Institute and Co-Chairman of the International Brand & Reputation Community (INBREC), in the German business magazine „return“.

Corporate reputation to be managed professionally

The corporate reputation has a significant impact on the business success of any commercial organisation. This effect, which has been proven by empirical studies, can work both in the positive and negative direction as we can see in the decline in sales of Volkswagen diesel cars in the US in the wake of the “diesel gate”. In order to use positive effects of corporate reputation on business success and prevent negative ones reputation has to be professionally managed.

Stakeholders: A broader group than just customers

An up-to-date approach to measuring and managing corporate reputation is a causal-analytical one. It calculates causes and effects of corporate reputation based on evidence such as stakeholder surveys. When conducting these surveys it is crucial to include all important and relevant stakeholder groups and not only to focus on customers.

Summary
Universum, one of the leading global employer branding firms, have published the 2016 edition of their “World’s Most Attractive Employers” ranking. Each year, it reveals the most attractive employers among engineering/IT and business students worldwide, as defined by Universum.

The methodology is based on a qualitative survey among 267,000 engineering/IT and business students from the world’s 12 largest economies (the U.S., China, Japan, Germany, France, U.K., Brazil, Russia, Italy, India, Canada and Australia). The students were asked to choose five employers they would like to work for most from a list of companies. In order to appear on this list companies have to appear in the top 90% of Universum’s Most Attractive Employers lists in at least 6 of 12 markets surveyed. The ranking is established by the number of votes companies get. The results are also weighed by GDP of the markets surveyed. I.e. a high rank in the USA has a bigger impact than a high rank in a country with a GDB inferior to the USA one. The students were also asked about their career ambitions.

Google is the world’s most attractive employer in both rankings. In the engineering/IT students ranking Microsoft makes it to #2 and Apple to #3. In the business students ranking Apple is #2 and E&Y #3. When it comes to industries, employers offering financial services are losing attraction for business students. IT and engineering students particularly turn their backs on hardware-focused tech companies like HP and Philips. Winners in both rankings are the global consulting firms.

The ranking is based on a large and qualitative survey among students worldwide and thus allows insights in what future talents expect from their employers. It is also an indicator for the success of the companies’ employer branding activities. With publications in leading media worldwide the ranking gains a lot of awareness. Nevertheless, it predominantly is a tool for Universum to sell their consulting services. A summary can be downloaded on the Universum website but more detailed reports and insights must be purchased. All in all, it is a useful ranking with some flaws in transparency.

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/rated-rankings/rated-ranking-universum-worlds-most-attractive-employers-2016/feed0Red Bull – Beverage or Sports Company?https://www.branding-institute.com/news/red-bull-beverage-or-sports-company
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/red-bull-beverage-or-sports-company#respondTue, 17 May 2016 15:41:31 +0000http://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2584RB Leipzig, an Eastern German football club sponsored by Red Bull, made it to the first German football league (1. Bundesliga) for the first time. The renowned Swiss radio show “Echo der Zeit” used the success story as an occasion to ask whether Red Bull is still a beverage or already a sports company.

The Swiss national broadcaster SRF invited Marco Casanova, co-founder and managing partner of Branding-Institute, to answer this question from a marketing and brand management expert’s point of view.

In his opinion Red Bull has developed from a beverage to a sports and media company. In their early years they successfully occupied a market niche for their products – the world of sports and adrenaline. Today Red Bull is sponsor of several sports teams and athletes. They use their own media to promote these teams and athletes and finally sell their energy drink.

]]>https://www.branding-institute.com/news/red-bull-beverage-or-sports-company/feed0Interview with South African radio station and online platformhttps://www.branding-institute.com/news/interview-with-south-african-radio-station
https://www.branding-institute.com/news/interview-with-south-african-radio-station#respondTue, 01 Mar 2016 12:22:58 +0000http://www.branding-institute.com/?p=2563

Markus Renner, Co-Owner and Managing Partner of Branding-Institute and Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of the International Brand & Reputation Community (INBREC) visited Johannesburg, South Africa’s business metropolis.

During his visit he was invited to an interview with SAFM, the largest radio broadcaster in South Africa. Markus talked among others about the link between brand, reputation and business success as well as the influence of a country’s brand on the success of businesses in the respective country, the so-called “country of origin effect”. He furthermore put a special emphasis on the situation of the brand South Africa which is the leading nation brand on the African continent but struggles in international comparison. Markus was interviewed by Ashraf Garda, one of South Africa’s most popular talk show hosts, in his afternoon talk show “In the spotlight”. Please click on the following links to listen to the full interview: Part 1, Part 2.

Markus was also interviewed by the internet platform mediaupdate.co.za. The website is dedicated to reporting on the latest news and information relevant to the South African and African advertising & marketing, media & entertainment, PR & CSI, and Social Media industries. He talked among others about INBREC’s new presence in Africa and the brand South Africa. Click here to read the full interview.

The occasion of his visit was the second meeting of the Africa chapter of the International Brand & Reputation Community, a forum for senior executives in brand and reputation management with chapters in six different countries/regions in Europe and Africa. Click here to learn more about INBREC.